NYLE Practice Questions with verified answers
Ans✓✓-"(a) The holders of shares representing twenty percent or more of the
votes of all outstanding shares of a corporation, other than a corporation
registered as an investment company under an act of congress entitled
"Investment Company Act of 1940", no shares of which are listed on a national
securities exchange or regularly quoted in an over-the-counter market by one or
more members of a national or an affiliated securities association, entitled to vote
in an election of directors may present a petition of dissolution on one or more of
the following grounds: (1) The directors or those in control of the corporation
have been guilty of illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions toward the
complaining shareholders; (2) The property or assets of the corporation are being
looted, wasted, or diverted for non-corporate purposes by its directors, officers or
those in control of the corporation.
(b) The court, in determining whether to proceed with involuntary dissolution
pursuant to this section, shall take into account: (1) Whether liquidation of the
corporation is the only feasible means whereby the petitioners may reasonably
expect to obtain a fair return on their investment; and (2) Whether liquidation of
the corporation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights and
interests of any substantial number of shareholders or of the petitioners." BCL §
1104-a (2012).
A motion in the defendant Dave's case is to be heard on May 15, 2020. Dave's
attorney mailed the notice of motion on May 2, 2020, to the plaintiff's New York
attorney and demanded answering affidavits. Did Dave's attorney mail the motion
on time?
A. Yes, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion 13 days
before the date the motion is to be heard
B. Yes, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion at least 12
days before the date the motion is to be heard
,C. No, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion less than 16
days before the date the motion is to be heard
D. No, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion less than 21
days before the date the motion is to be heard Ans✓✓-(D) "A notice of motion
and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days before the time at
which the motion is noticed to be heard. Answering affidavits shall be served at
least two days before such time. Answering affidavits and any notice of cross-
motion, with supporting papers, if any, shall be served at least seven days before
such time if a notice of motion served at least sixteen days before such time so
demands; whereupon any reply or responding affidavits shall be served at least
one day before such time." CPLR § 2214.
A statute makes it a crime to serve alcoholic beverages to anyone under the age
of 21. Sally, a 19-year-old college student went to a club for people 19+. At the
bar, she asked the bartender to make her an alcoholic beverage. When the
bartender asked for her age, she said that she was 22. Many people had mistaken
Sally for being 22-years-old in the past. The bartender believed Sally and served
her the beverage. Is the bartender likely to face criminal prosecution?
A. No, because it was reasonable to believe that Sally was 22
B. No, because the bartender lacked knowledge that Sally was under 21
C. Yes, because of the Dram Shop Act
D. Yes, because the bartender served an alcoholic beverage to a 19-year-old girl
Ans✓✓-(D) "3. Notwithstanding the use of the term "knowingly" in any provision
of this chapter defining an offense in which the age of a child is an element
thereof, knowledge by the defendant of the age of such child is not an element of
any such offense and it is not, unless expressly so provided, a defense to a
prosecution therefor that the defendant did not know the age of the child or
believed such age to be the same as or greater than that specified in the statute."
Penal Law § 15.20 [3].
,A victim of a bank robbery brought a civil charge against Simon, the alleged bank
robber, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The bank robbery occurred
on Tuesday between 1:23 p.m. and 1:32 p.m. Simon's defense team wants to
submit evidence that Simon always takes his lunch at Local Diner between 1:00
p.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. May Simon's defense team submit this
evidence?
A. No, evidence of a defendant's habits is inadmissible to prove the defendant's
propensity to commit the act in issue
B. No, because evidence of a defendant's specific acts is inadmissible
C. Yes, because evidence of a defendant's habits is admissible to prove the
defendant's propensity to commit the act in issue
D. Yes, because evidence of a defendant's habits is admissible to establish that
the defendant acted in conformity with the habit Ans✓✓-(D) "[E]vidence of habit
has . . . generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions
because one who has demonstrated a consistent response under given
circumstances is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances
arise again." Rivera v Anilesh, 8 NY3d 627, 633-34 (2007).
Adam worked as a cashier for Superstore, Inc. for 4 years and planned to continue
working there indefinitely. Adam was a great employee. One day, Adam came to
work 30 seconds late, which was his first time arriving late. His supervisor, who
had just finalized his divorce that morning, fired Adam for arriving to work late. If
Adam brings a claim for wrongful discharge, is he likely to succeed?
A. No, because an at-will employee may be fired without cause
B. No, because the supervisor had a valid reason for firing Adam
C. Yes, because an employee who has worked for more than three years with the
same employer may be fired for cause only
, D. Yes, because an at-will employee may be fired for cause only Ans✓✓-(A)
"[W]here an employment is for an indefinite term it is presumed to be a hiring at
will which may be freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or
even for no reason." Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 300
[1983].
Adam, a 14-year-old boy, was filming a prank for a social media website where he
placed a fake bomb in a shopping mall. Zoe, a shopper, was leaving the mall when
Peter, another shopper, collided into Zoe as he ran away from the fake bomb in
terror. Zoe fell to the ground and suffered damages. Two months later, Zoe sued
Adam's parents. Adam's parents moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action, arguing that parents are not vicariously liable for the actions of their
children. Should the court grant the motion on that ground?
A. No, because parents are generally vicariously liable for the actions of their
children
B. No, because Adam intentionally placed the bomb
C. Yes, because parents are not vicariously liable for torts of their infant children
D. Yes, because Adam is over the age of 13 Ans✓✓-(B) The parent or legal
guardian . . . of an infant over ten and less than eighteen years of age, shall be
liable to any . . . private individual or organization having by law the care, custody
and/or ownership of any private property, for damages caused by such infant,
where such infant has willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully damaged, defaced or
destroyed such public or private property, whether real or personal, or, where
such infant, with intent to deprive the owner and/or custodian of such property
or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, has
knowingly entered or remained in a building and has wrongfully taken, obtained
or withheld such public or private personal property from such building which
personal property is owned or maintained by the state or any political subdivision
thereof or which is owned or maintained by any individual, organization or
authority, or where such infant has falsely reported an incident or placed a false
bomb . . . ." GOL 3-112.
Ans✓✓-"(a) The holders of shares representing twenty percent or more of the
votes of all outstanding shares of a corporation, other than a corporation
registered as an investment company under an act of congress entitled
"Investment Company Act of 1940", no shares of which are listed on a national
securities exchange or regularly quoted in an over-the-counter market by one or
more members of a national or an affiliated securities association, entitled to vote
in an election of directors may present a petition of dissolution on one or more of
the following grounds: (1) The directors or those in control of the corporation
have been guilty of illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions toward the
complaining shareholders; (2) The property or assets of the corporation are being
looted, wasted, or diverted for non-corporate purposes by its directors, officers or
those in control of the corporation.
(b) The court, in determining whether to proceed with involuntary dissolution
pursuant to this section, shall take into account: (1) Whether liquidation of the
corporation is the only feasible means whereby the petitioners may reasonably
expect to obtain a fair return on their investment; and (2) Whether liquidation of
the corporation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights and
interests of any substantial number of shareholders or of the petitioners." BCL §
1104-a (2012).
A motion in the defendant Dave's case is to be heard on May 15, 2020. Dave's
attorney mailed the notice of motion on May 2, 2020, to the plaintiff's New York
attorney and demanded answering affidavits. Did Dave's attorney mail the motion
on time?
A. Yes, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion 13 days
before the date the motion is to be heard
B. Yes, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion at least 12
days before the date the motion is to be heard
,C. No, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion less than 16
days before the date the motion is to be heard
D. No, because the attorney mailed the service of notice of motion less than 21
days before the date the motion is to be heard Ans✓✓-(D) "A notice of motion
and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days before the time at
which the motion is noticed to be heard. Answering affidavits shall be served at
least two days before such time. Answering affidavits and any notice of cross-
motion, with supporting papers, if any, shall be served at least seven days before
such time if a notice of motion served at least sixteen days before such time so
demands; whereupon any reply or responding affidavits shall be served at least
one day before such time." CPLR § 2214.
A statute makes it a crime to serve alcoholic beverages to anyone under the age
of 21. Sally, a 19-year-old college student went to a club for people 19+. At the
bar, she asked the bartender to make her an alcoholic beverage. When the
bartender asked for her age, she said that she was 22. Many people had mistaken
Sally for being 22-years-old in the past. The bartender believed Sally and served
her the beverage. Is the bartender likely to face criminal prosecution?
A. No, because it was reasonable to believe that Sally was 22
B. No, because the bartender lacked knowledge that Sally was under 21
C. Yes, because of the Dram Shop Act
D. Yes, because the bartender served an alcoholic beverage to a 19-year-old girl
Ans✓✓-(D) "3. Notwithstanding the use of the term "knowingly" in any provision
of this chapter defining an offense in which the age of a child is an element
thereof, knowledge by the defendant of the age of such child is not an element of
any such offense and it is not, unless expressly so provided, a defense to a
prosecution therefor that the defendant did not know the age of the child or
believed such age to be the same as or greater than that specified in the statute."
Penal Law § 15.20 [3].
,A victim of a bank robbery brought a civil charge against Simon, the alleged bank
robber, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The bank robbery occurred
on Tuesday between 1:23 p.m. and 1:32 p.m. Simon's defense team wants to
submit evidence that Simon always takes his lunch at Local Diner between 1:00
p.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. May Simon's defense team submit this
evidence?
A. No, evidence of a defendant's habits is inadmissible to prove the defendant's
propensity to commit the act in issue
B. No, because evidence of a defendant's specific acts is inadmissible
C. Yes, because evidence of a defendant's habits is admissible to prove the
defendant's propensity to commit the act in issue
D. Yes, because evidence of a defendant's habits is admissible to establish that
the defendant acted in conformity with the habit Ans✓✓-(D) "[E]vidence of habit
has . . . generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions
because one who has demonstrated a consistent response under given
circumstances is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances
arise again." Rivera v Anilesh, 8 NY3d 627, 633-34 (2007).
Adam worked as a cashier for Superstore, Inc. for 4 years and planned to continue
working there indefinitely. Adam was a great employee. One day, Adam came to
work 30 seconds late, which was his first time arriving late. His supervisor, who
had just finalized his divorce that morning, fired Adam for arriving to work late. If
Adam brings a claim for wrongful discharge, is he likely to succeed?
A. No, because an at-will employee may be fired without cause
B. No, because the supervisor had a valid reason for firing Adam
C. Yes, because an employee who has worked for more than three years with the
same employer may be fired for cause only
, D. Yes, because an at-will employee may be fired for cause only Ans✓✓-(A)
"[W]here an employment is for an indefinite term it is presumed to be a hiring at
will which may be freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or
even for no reason." Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 300
[1983].
Adam, a 14-year-old boy, was filming a prank for a social media website where he
placed a fake bomb in a shopping mall. Zoe, a shopper, was leaving the mall when
Peter, another shopper, collided into Zoe as he ran away from the fake bomb in
terror. Zoe fell to the ground and suffered damages. Two months later, Zoe sued
Adam's parents. Adam's parents moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action, arguing that parents are not vicariously liable for the actions of their
children. Should the court grant the motion on that ground?
A. No, because parents are generally vicariously liable for the actions of their
children
B. No, because Adam intentionally placed the bomb
C. Yes, because parents are not vicariously liable for torts of their infant children
D. Yes, because Adam is over the age of 13 Ans✓✓-(B) The parent or legal
guardian . . . of an infant over ten and less than eighteen years of age, shall be
liable to any . . . private individual or organization having by law the care, custody
and/or ownership of any private property, for damages caused by such infant,
where such infant has willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully damaged, defaced or
destroyed such public or private property, whether real or personal, or, where
such infant, with intent to deprive the owner and/or custodian of such property
or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, has
knowingly entered or remained in a building and has wrongfully taken, obtained
or withheld such public or private personal property from such building which
personal property is owned or maintained by the state or any political subdivision
thereof or which is owned or maintained by any individual, organization or
authority, or where such infant has falsely reported an incident or placed a false
bomb . . . ." GOL 3-112.
